Basic properties of the integers

MA 341 Spring 2011

Denitions

The natural numbers are the numbers 1, 2, 3, . . . (some authors include zero, as well), and for shorthand, we will denote the collection of them by N. The integers (a.k.a. the whole numbers) are the natural numbers, together with zero and the negatives of the natural numbers, and we will denote them by Z. So, Z  t. . . , 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, . . . u.

The integers come equipped with extra structure with which you are all familiar: addition (), multiplication (), and an ordering (). Ill leave addition and multiplication undened (but I could dene it by starting from even more basic assumptions). As for ordering, Ill simply point out that one can give the following denition: Denition 1.1. Given two integers a, b, we say that a is less than b, written a b, if there exists a c N such that b  a c.

Basic properties of the integers

In this section, well list some basic properties of the integers that will form the basis of everything we will prove this semester, i.e. everything we prove this semester will be traceable all the way back to these simple properties. In the next section, we will prove some basic consequences of these properties; you will prove more basic consequences on your rst assignment.

2.1

Arithmetic properties

We begin with the arithmetic properties, i.e. those related to addition, multiplication, and the relation between the two.

(1) if a, b Z, then a b Z (2) if a, b Z, then a b Z (3) if a, b Z, then a b  b a (4) if a, b Z, then a b  b a (5) if a, b, c Z, then a pb cq  pa bq c (6) if a, b, c Z, then a pb cq  pa bq c (7) there exists an element 0 Z such that for all a Z a0a

(closure under addition) (closure under multiplication) (commutativity of addition) (commutativity of multiplication) (associativity of addition) (associativity of multiplication)

(existence of an additive identity)

(8) there exists an element 1 Z such that for all a Z a1a (9) for every a Z, there is a solution x Z to ax0 (namely x  a) (10) if a, b, c Z and c $ 0, then a c  b c implies a  b (11) if a, b, c Z, then a pb cq  a b a c. Remark 2.1. (a) For properties (1)(8), there is a property of addition followed by a corresponding property of multiplication. This breaks down for property (9). The corresponding property would be that for all a Z there is a solution x Z to a x  1. But, of course, this fails, e.g. take a  2, there is no integer x such that 2x  1. However, the cancellation law (10) often serves as a substitute for the lack of multiplicative inverses: often you just want to divide both sides of an equation by the same quantity, the cancellation law allows you to do this without actually having to divide. (cancellation law) (distributivity law) (existence of an additive inverse) (existence of a multiplicative identity)

(b) Property (9) allows us to dene subtraction as follows: a b : a pbq, i.e. subtracting b is dened to be adding its additive inverse.

2.2

Ordering properties

The ordering properties are those concerning the relation (12) if a, b 0, then a b 0 (13) if a, b 0, then a b 0 (14) for any two integers a, b Z

.
(closure of 0 under addition)

(closure of 0 under multiplication)

exactly one of a b, a  b, or a b is true

(trichotomy law)

(15) Every non-empty set of natural numbers has a least element, i.e. for any S S $ r, then there is an m S such that m s, for all s S. Remark 2.2. (a) Just to be clear, we write a b if b a, and we write a b if a b or a  b.

N, if

(well-ordering property)

(b) Property (14) suggests a convenient way to prove two numbers a, b are equal: rst prove a b, then prove b a. Since it cant be true that both a b and b a, this implies that a  b.

Some basic consequences

Here, we give some examples of some basic consequences of the properties listed above, as well as their proof. A major reason for including some proofs here is to give you some experience with proofs, so do read through them and try to understand why they are how they are. Youll have a chance to practice similar proofs on the rst assignment.

Proposition 3.1. The additive identity in Z is unique, i.e. 0 is the only element in Z satisfying property (7). Proof. Let e Z denote an integer such that a e true for a  0, so 0 e  0. Also, 0ee0 (by commutativity of

 a for all a Z.

In particular, this is

 e.

(since 0 is an additive identity)

Putting these together, we get

00ee

so e  0. So, any integer satisfying property (7) is necessarily 0. Can you nd a shorter proof of the above? Proposition 3.2. Given a Z, its additive inverse is unique, i.e. the equation a x  0 has a unique solution x Z. Proof. Suppose x, y Z are such that a x  0 and a y the second equation gives a y x  x.

 0.

Adding x to both sides of

By commutativity of addition, denition of x, and the fact that 0 is the additive identity, ayxaxy Combing these two lines gives x  y . Proposition 3.3. For all a Z, 0 a  0.

 0 y  y.

p0 0q b  0 b 0 b. Since 0 is an additive identity, 0 0  0, so p0 0q b  0 b.

Proof. By distributivity,

Combing these two equations yields 0 b 0 b  0 b. Adding

p0 bq to both sides gives

0 b  0,

as desired. Proposition 3.4. For all a Z,

a  p1q a.

Proof. First, well show that

p1q a is an additive inverse of a. Indeed,

(by (8) and (4)) (by distributivity and (3)) (by (7)) (by proposition 3.3)

a p1q a  1 a p1q a

 p1 p1qq a 0a  0,

as desired. By the uniqueness of additive inverses (proposition 3.2), the result follows. Proposition 3.5. Let a, b Z. If a b  0, then a  0 or b  0. Proof. (Proof by contradiction) Since a b  0, a b a b  a b  0. By the uniqueness of additive inverses (proposition 3.2), this implies that

pa bq  a b.
Applying proposition 3.4 (and (8)), gives

p1q a b  1 a b.
If b $ 0, we can use the cancellation law to obtain

p1q a  1 a.

If a is also not 0, we can apply the cancellation law again to get

1  1.
But 1 1  2 N and hence 1 1 $ 0, i.e. 1 $ 1. Therefore, the assumption that both a and b are not zero leads to a contradiction. Therefore, one of them must be zero, as desired. Proposition 3.6. Let b Z. Then b N if, and only, b 0. Proof.

pq: suppose b N. By (7) and (3),

b  0 b,

i.e., using denition 1.1 (with a  0 and c  b), we can say 0 b. pq: (contrapositive) suppose b N, then we want to show that b 0 is not true. By denition, Z consists of the natural numbers, 0, and the negatives of the natural numbers. Since b N, either b  0 or there is a N such that b  a. If b  0, then the trichotomy law implies that you cant have b 0. In the second case (b  a), we have 0  a a  b a. In terms of denition 1.1, this means that b true.

0.

By the trichotomy law, b

0 cannot be

The well-ordering property is a statement about N. More generally, given any ordered set X , we say it is well-ordered if every non-empty subset S X has a least element. Let a Z and dene the notation Za : tb Z : b au; in particular, N  Z1 . All of these sets are well-ordered. Proposition 3.7. Let a Z, then Za is well-ordered. Proof. Let S

Za be any non-empty subset. Let

X : ts a 1 : s S u.

Claim (1). X is a non-empty subset of N.

Proof of claim (1). X is non-empty since a a 1  1 X . To show X N, its enough to show that for all x X , x 0 (by proposition 3.6). By a question on assignment 1, s a if, and only if, s r Using this with r

a r for all r Z.

()

 a 1, we get that for all s S

s a 1 a a 1  1.

Let x X , then there is an s S such that x  s a 1. Hence, x 1. Since N is well-ordered and X is a non-empty subset of it, there is a least element x0 Claim (2). s0 : x0 a 1 is a least element of S . Proof of claim (2). Let s S . Using

X.

pq again with r  a 1, s0, and the

s s0 if, and only if s a 1 x0 . By denition of X , s a 1 latter is a least element of S .

X , so we know that s a 1 x0.

Hence, s

S was arbitrary, so Za is well-ordered. Proposition 3.8. The integers Z are not well-ordered. Proof. (Proof by counterexample) We need to nd a non-empty subset S of Z which has no least element. Lets simply take S  Z (our proposed counterexample). Lets suppose m Z is a least element and derive a contradiction. Since m  pm 1q 1, denition 1.1 says m 1 m, contradicting the minimality of m. Therefore, S  Z has no least element.